digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at reuters.com —

Iraq: The Surge Is Not Working.

reuters.com — MOSUL, Iraq (Reuters) - Eleven Iraqis were killed on Sunday during a U.S. raid on a home in northern Iraq in which a suicide bomber detonated an explosive vest among civilians inside, the U.S. military said. A U.S. military spokesman said it was not...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • GovernmentSp00k, on 10/05/2008, -28/+26Since when did the corporation of the US MIC want to do the right thing? The surge is working bull-ish they talk. Did the surge work in New Orleans?

    Truth is treason in the empire of lies
    • razorsedge555, on 10/05/2008, -5/+13"Historian Larry Schweikart argued in his book America's Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars, that the surge's success, in part, came from the incredible casualties the U.S. military inflicted on al-Qaeda in Iraq and on the "insurgents" from 2003 to 2006---some 40,000 killed, about 200,000 wounded, 20,000 captured, and nearly 10,000 deserted. He has stated that those levels of attrition on an enemy the estimated size of al-Qaeda were substantial and deeply damaging, not only to the terrorists' efforts in Iraq, but had the effect of depleting them worldwide. Moreover, Schweikart argued, virtually all estimates of enemy casualties were severely undercounted (as are all numbers of guerilla casualties) given the inability to know identify bodies which were completely annihilated by explosives or to count carcasses dragged away, as well as how many would die later after attempted medical treatment by other Al Queda sympathizers." Thanks for your comments, robot. Back to the factory.
      • SSPink, on 10/05/2008, -10/+8You are aware, of course, that 'al-Qaeda' and 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' are completely different organizations that have almost nothing in common except for a name, right? So your post has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of the surge to achieve it's stated goals.
      • DyceFreak, on 10/05/2008, -7/+10you do know that al-Qaeda is a fabricated company used to start unjustified wars?
      • GovernmentSp00k, on 10/06/2008, -0/+6"Thanks for your comments, robot. Back to the factory"

        Only a robot would so obediently buy government propaganda, as you. You lose, dummy. They have assimilated your conscience. "The surge is working"

        "Al Qaeda" is nothing more than code for anyone who opposes the Neocon PNAC agenda. It is a fabrication of the US government. Those countless 10-thousands of deaths from the US killing surge are Iraq civilians defending their property from the corporation of the US war profiteer MIC looters invading their country. They are of course labeled "terrorists!" "Al ciada" and other dumb propaganda the American dummies eat up like candy. They must be part of an organized front because my TV "news" says so!

        How would you react if a foreign army, tanks, bombs, military rolled into your town to "liberate" your ass? And your family was mutilated, your daughter slaughtered in a "precision strikes" aerial bombing campaign, your animals senselessly killed in a pool of running blood and your husbands life a victim of "the surge." Would you just sit there, after losing everything, your village, your livelihood, your precious loved ones, knowing these invaders are taking over your country to exploit it's resources and control its oil supply and you are doomed either way or fight back relentlessly with all your life.

        The "War On Terror" is a crock of *****.

        There hasn't been a war in history that wasn't based on lies, deceit.

        Watch the Secret Government - The Constitution in Crisis
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655 ...
        "This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the Constitution and wishes and values of the American people. The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2008 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran. We have the 'Patriot Act' which has stripped us of many of our basic civil rights justified by the terror of 9/11 which is their own doing. "

        Watch 'The Power of Nightmares' Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-535008336 ...
        Politicians have been using this transparent "fear agenda" to control, manipulate and deceive populations for decades. Where have you been?

        You have been expertly hoodwinked by professional deceivers. Enjoy your willful ignorance.
    • mrsteveman1, on 10/05/2008, -3/+5Sure the surge worked in New Orleans. Different kind of surge though, that one sort of covered the city with water :D
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/06/2008, -3/+4The headline is strictly the unsubstantiated opinion of the article submitter; the military has NEVER claimed that the surge eliminated ALL violence from Iraq, and the article makes NO claims about the effectiveness of the surge whatsoever.

      Article buried as inaccurate.
  • MercyPolitics, on 10/05/2008, -36/+57I decided to put a photo of Sarah Palin next to this post. After all, one of the fairy tales that the McCain/Palin ticket is running on is that " The Surge is Working".
    • CDHarrisUSF, on 10/05/2008, -1/+2I was always reminded of this article when the surge talking point came up in the debates:
      http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/sc_nm/iraq_lig ...
    • pearcewg, on 10/05/2008, -6/+8It is working. Period.
    • Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -3/+8You amaze me. Were you in Iraq? Do you know first hand? Doesn't it piss you off that the only press you listen to is lying to you? I have many friends who have been and are in Iraq. Se, I associate with the evil military. And unfortunately the story I hear from them doesn't jibe with what you or the press tells me.
      • oldhick, on 10/06/2008, -4/+8So some stories you here from soldiers are more accurate? They have a personal interest in believing the world looks a certain way. I respect their commitment and support their efforts. but I also feel comfortable recognizing that they are from capable of being the source of objective information. If you don't see that then you are absolutely crazy.
        Just an FYI, I have some friends over there as well that paint a horrifying picture that would most likely contradict your friends. What does that mean? It means not everyone sees everything the same way and you need to open and you need to listen to as many sources as you can. People are dying every single day in Iraq. People live in atrocious conditions. They are afraid to go out. They are afraid of noises at night. They are afraid of each other and they are afraid of us.
        You can argue the semantics of things getting better or worse, but the bottom line is they are not GOOD.
    • matthewaaron, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2If the military numbers are back to pre-surge levels, isn't the surge over?
    • Thud, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1But Obama went on O'Reilly and said that the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

      Does this mean Obama lied to us?
    • 9Digits, on 10/06/2008, -3/+2How clever of you, Mercy.

      Go step on a land mine.
  • kazz67, on 10/05/2008, -20/+33I'm at the stage now where headlines like this literally make me laugh!
    Of course the surge isn't working! - It failed MONTHS ago when judged along the lines of its purported intentions!

    But then, it's also like saying the occupation isn't working. For as long as Iraq is occupied the occupation can be said to be 'working' and if the surge is part of the occupation, which it is, then by that "standard" it's doing exactly what it was actually intended to do.

    If, on the other hand, the expectation is that by sending more troops into an already occupied country you will somehow REDUCE the desire of the people of that country to get you the *~#**# out of there, then yeah, the surge is not working!
    • damonic, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4The problem is that the people that support McCain/Palin (the six-pack crowd) believe the lies.
      • nycmac247, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3"We are rounding a corner!!"
      • mvlazysusan, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1kazz67kazz67 dugg, frenden, and I'm gonna digg some of your past comments,
        and did you know?
        CHUCK BALDWIN IS RUNNING FOR PRES.,.
        I'm a Ron Paul fan but I think people are coullessing around
        CHUCK BALDWIN
    • opiniastrous, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1To preface this comment, I did not and do not support the reasons for this war. However, I think that now it has happened there is a moral obligation to ensure that it at least ends. That is to say, ensure that on withdrawal, Iraq has an effective security force, a working government and a peaceful and prosperous society.

      Now, onto my rebuttal. You say this headline makes you laugh Kazz. Well, perhaps you didn't read the actual article, because if you did you would note that MercyPolitics has heavily editorialised it by creating a whole new article title for it, completely warping the meaning. The actual article headline is 'Bomber Strikes During US Raid in Iraq, 11 Killed.' It's a tactical level article, not a military-strategic or national-strategic level article. Of course, military strategic situations are the result of combined tactical circumstances, but Mercy's overdone it here: a swallow does not make a summer. What Mercy needs is to look at the statistics. The fact of the matter is that violence has gone down since the surge began. You can argue that the reduction in violence is due to ethno-sectarian violence almost being completed, and I agree that is a factor, but consider this: ethno-sectarian violence was largely restricted to Baghdad, a single city. Violence is down across the entire country.

      http://www.understandingwar.org/files/Iraq%20Stati ...

      Now, a counterinsurgency effort takes on average 11 years to be successful. The Iraq War has been going on for less than five. Yes, it was going very poorly for a while, but the US Military began to learn how to fight conflicts other than the conventional wars it had trained to fight for so long. Iraq was also fortunate that a number of leaders that understood insurgencies rose to the top (e.g. Petraeus). These leaders brought something else to the table: a coherent and effective military strategy. 'The Surge' is not a counterinsurgency strategy. It's a 20 second camera grab designed for an audience that can't listen to a new story longer than a couple of minutes. 'The Surge' is a a catchphrase for people who don't understand military affairs. When you base your argument on that simplistic understanding of the 'Surge' (i.e. more troops), your words belie your failure to comprehend the conflict. The real strategy is far more complex, and it's working. If you'd like to understand a little more about COIN, I quickly grabbed this article:

      http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/cohe ...
      • nycmac247, on 10/06/2008, -1/+3"I think that now it has happened there is a moral obligation to ensure that it at least ends."
        Just keep putting it on the credit card, right?
      • opiniastrous, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1What do you value more? Your wealth or their lives?
      • joand315, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1The US military presence is costing lives.
      • opiniastrous, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Of course. It's an urban war. Will withdrawing US forces end the war though?

        No. You can put it out of your mind (wouldn't that be nice) and go back to tending to your garden, watch the baseball, scour digg or whatever you like to do with your time. The reality is however, that you will have just willingly participated in the abandonment of a people that your country dragged into one of the world's bloodiest and most notorious wars, regardless of whether you supported it or not.

        The war might end for you (though arguably, it never began for you), but it will not end for the 30 million people who live in Iraq. Without US support, one of two things will likely happen:

        1) The Iraqi government will struggle to defeat the insurgency, and an indefinite stalemate will result. The insurgencies in the Philippines began in the 70s and an end still appears a long way off. If the US leaves now civilians might be dying in Iraq in 2040, 2050.
        2) The Iraqi government will struggle to defeat the insurgency before finally being overwhelmed. If Iraq is lucky, the multifarious insurgent groups will come together quickly under an effective leader. Iraq will probably become a theocratic autocracy. More probably however, a number of insurgent groups will not accept the proposed status quo, and the insurgency will continue against a different government. Ethno-sectarian violence will rear its head once again.

        That's the truth.
  • Meadow113, on 10/05/2008, -15/+28It makes me ill when she talks of victory in Iraq. How can there be victory in a situation where you put your troops into an unnecessary war for profit and thousands of people died and were badly injured? To the victor go the spoils, what exactly are the spoils here? 10 billion a month of our money, trillions of dollars before it is done, thousands of lives ended and altered, and the region less stable than when we found it.
    • Hanny26, on 10/05/2008, -2/+13I agree completely, I felt myself flare up with anger whenever I heard either McCain or Palin throw out the terms 'Victory in Iraq" or "Winning in Iraq" during the debates.

      We aren't winning anything, there is nothing for us to win in Iraq, get it through your thick, "soccer mom", "Maverick", skulls and get our troops state side.
      • Badandy127, on 10/05/2008, -9/+4I believe killing the enemies is what they consider winning. You know, not money. Killing bad guys.
      • Meadow113, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3I am having to reply to this one to get to the one under it lol

        The enemy is in Pakistan, where they have been all along. Pakistan is threatened by them now, Pakistan teeters on the edge. Pakistan has nukes too.
      • joand315, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1General Petraeus says we can't succeed by killing people. I'll take his word for it. He doesn't use the word "win".

        http://vdare.com/buchanan/081006_generals.htm
        Indeed, "victory" may be unattainable, says America's most successful general, David Petraeus, who asserts he will never use the word in speaking of Iraq. "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade."

        You cannot kill or capture your way out of an insurgency that is as significant as the one in Iraq, nor, I believe, as large as the one that has developed in Afghanistan."
      • Meadow113, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1Joand, I do not believe that you can ever win fighting guerillas with conventional troops unless you are willing to go in and slaughter everything that moves, otherwise, with the enemy dressed like the civilians, moving among the civilians, you are going to end up with your soldiers hitting some innocent people and creating more guerillas.
  • Berkana, on 10/05/2008, -16/+23The surge certainly hasn't transformed Iraq for the better. Violence is down only because the city has been carved up by walls separating Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. None of the basic infrastructure is in functional order:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTMp-YNaDdg
    http://digg.com/world_news/Baghdad_5_years_Later_S ...
  • AussieCynic, on 10/05/2008, -8/+1and they worked this when....
  • stutimandal, on 10/05/2008, -9/+3Patch up your economic bailout and related problems. Iraq war is nothing in comparison to the 10 trillion dollar debt of US. That ten trillion dollar debt will neither soothe nor aggravate due to a win or loss in Iraq.
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/05/2008, -16/+22Shouldn't have went there in the first place.
    • Badandy127, on 10/05/2008, -3/+2"GONE". Shouldn't have GONE in there in the first place.
      • spyd3rweb, on 10/05/2008, -2/+4"GONE."

        You seemed to have placed that period outside the quotation marks. You shouldn't have gone there either.
      • Badandy127, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1Whose error is more indicative of a poor understanding of the english language: Someone who said "Shouldn't have went" or misplacing a period? I mean, that didn't just sound WRONG to you when you wrote it out?
    • zmigliozzi, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1Ya Saddam was a good person... You're insane.
  • blankoboy, on 10/05/2008, -11/+18No *****. Invasion and occupation doesn't make you right. Should not have gone to begin with. Stupid all around.

    /a complete waste of human life on both the American and Iraq sides. A tragedy and utter disgrace to humanity. Those responsible MUST be brought to justice.
    • opticwind, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1You mean the guy that blew himself up?
  • Crimsoneer, on 10/05/2008, -10/+48Okay, one US raid and we say the surge isn't working? Violence is still at the lowest its been for more than a year.
    • FritoP, on 10/05/2008, -8/+18Shhh! Don't interrupt the liberal circle-jerk by stating facts!
    • pearcewg, on 10/06/2008, -4/+2I know that a large number of Americans hate the Iraq situation so much that they don't want it to work in any fashion (deep down or vocally). However, having the surge work and stabilization in Iraq has such a huge upside potential in the future.
    • ad33lshahid, on 10/06/2008, -5/+10if you want to go by levels of violence then saddam hussein in power worked much better than any "surge"
    • oldhick, on 10/06/2008, -2/+6People are dying every day, even with the surge. I think the problem is defining the word "worked". Is "worked" defined by temporarily reducing violence against coalition troops? Is "worked" temporarily reducing the violence against coalition troops, Iraqi troops, and civilians? Is "worked" permanently reducing violence?
      I would love to have a calm discussion with you guys but I need to know how you define your terms before it's really possible. What is your definition for victory in Iraq, what would that look like to you? What happens after this surge? How long does this surge last? How many tours of duty should our soldiers be forced to repeat to achieve this victory? Get all the details out and then I think we can have a fairly productive discussion.
      I promise you I would love nothing more than "victory" in Iraq. I just don't know what that would look like...
      • aliashandle, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2Look at what you just said, "Violence is still at the lowest its been for more than a year." We haven't been there for just a year buddy with been there since 2003. There's a circle jerk with the facts eh? Instead of 1 soldier dying a day what do we have? pre 2008 levels of .3 soldiers dying a day? what is .3? a leg, an arm? How is that progress? Here's a time line for yah. 2006 Really ***** *****, 2007 Really *****, 2008 just plain *****. It's still ***** folks.
      • oldhick, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2@aliashandle, I think you're confused. I wasn't defending the surge. I think we should get out of Iraq. I was trying to engage those who think we're winning or those who think this surge is helpful in a rational dialogue. You should calm down and take a breath. I agree it's all *****, but we need to have a rational and calm discussion.
      • carpespasm, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1.3 would mean about every 3.3 days a soldier would die.
    • Kizilbash, on 10/06/2008, -3/+2No, the surge has never worked, US raids or not. You want some facts? The fact is that over 2 million Iraqis live in Syria and Jordan and have no intention of returning any time soon, although circumstances there are pretty desperate as well. The fact is that the numbers of refugees increased during your surge. The fact is that people are still leaving. The fact is that there has not been any political reconciliation, that the militias just ran out of people to kill.
      • avidbuff, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2Violence is way down, 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met and children now play in city parks. And you say the surge hasn't worked?

        BTW refugees are returning.
      • JohnMcPAIN, on 10/20/2008, -0/+0Well if you are basing victory on the number of people leaving the country then World War 2 must have been a total failure since millions of jews went to live in Israel and never returned.
      • barackuda, on 10/21/2008, -0/+0Did the U.S. force the Jews to go to Israel?
        No, Hitler and his stunning mustache did.

        Go white supremacy!


  • rootsm3, on 10/05/2008, -11/+7You can't win a war. People are dying. There's no "work" in that.
  • poidh, on 10/05/2008, -10/+34The article doesn't say the surge hasn't worked. Buried for the submitter being a hand-wringing, defeatist fool.
  • TJATL, on 10/05/2008, -10/+66Can we say misleading and inaccurate title? Buried.
  • Naomarik, on 10/05/2008, -4/+6Obviously from previous experiences in war if they harvested enough minerals, vespene gas and built enough supply depots before building and sending teh army this mess would have been avoided.
  • fracaso089, on 10/05/2008, -9/+7in other news, Heath Ledger is still dead
  • chickenloco, on 10/05/2008, -6/+25If this was a story with information on troop levels and related violence, I'd digg it. But to say "The surge is not working" and then have the article not mention the surge at all?

    Buried.
  • Midtowner, on 10/05/2008, -7/+40You idiots.

    Taking a single episode where 11 people were tragically killed does not, in any universe, lead to the conclusion that the surge didn't work. If you want to know how the surge is working, ask the Iraqi government which believes that it should be able to operate and control its own people within three years.

    This has nothing to do with whether we should be there to begin with.
  • Wosat, on 10/05/2008, -6/+14Obama thinks the surge has succeeded beyond his greatest expectations.
    • malex, on 10/05/2008, -3/+5Yet, that doesn't mean that military force alone can actually stabilize Iraqi society without political solutions.

      I think that is the actual problem here.
    • Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -7/+3Tell your buddy Obama to STFU. I can't believe you people on the left choose Obama to represent you. Had you picked Hillary, whom I also hate, you would have easily won this election. It's nice that you drank the kool-aid and fell in love with Obama but I don't think it will last with the average Joe. You kinda gotta be a left wing nut job to not have some serious doubts about him. (That does encompass almost all of Digg BTW) I got it, you guys are Obama jock strap sniffers. (too soon?) If you had put up any semi-moderate candidate this election would have been yours hands down. No, you have to go as far left as you can, snatch a baby killer right out of the Senate and put him up for president. I am only grateful you didn't choose him as your V.P. candidate as that seems to be the more important office.
      • Wosat, on 10/06/2008, -2/+2Obama's not my buddy, Sherlock.
      • Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -3/+1Yeah, I misread your post. My apologizes. Unless you were being sarcastic. :-) I am just getting tired of all the attacks on Republicans here. I want to, in some small way, fight back. I'm not stupid. I want what is best for America. I understand that a lot of what Bush has done is not what the American people want, myself included. I do agree with some of his policies. But here on Digg, agreeing with Bush on anything makes you an idiot. Just because Bush is a Republican doesn't mean all Republicans are just like Bush. It's not like he hasn't given the left a lot to bitch about, he has. But still the left, at least here on Digg, still feels the need to make stuff up. An example is I am still hearing about the separation of church and state. From before Bush was elected the first time I heard how he was going to preach from the pulpit and make everything about religion. It didn't happen. Now it's the Iraqi surge is not working when "almost" everyone agrees it is. The left just won't say it because you have to go back to that part about if you agree with ANYTHING Bush says or does then you are an idiot.
      • Wosat, on 10/06/2008, -1/+2I'm with you Zarchon. I totally agree.

        You can understand why I don't want anyone mistaking me for an Obamabot. :-)
  • Diggnabbit, on 10/05/2008, -2/+29I'm not a fan of McCain or the Iraq War.

    But, this article really doesn't say anything either way about the surge. It describes an incident of violence in Iraq. No-one claimed that the surge had stopped all the violence in Iraq.
  • sweetbwaoy, on 10/05/2008, -12/+9You notice that they never say, "The Surge WORKED"?

    It's all window dressing. They failed to mention the millions and millions of dollars that they spent PAYING OFF the various factions to stop them from fighting. None of these factions were fighting prior to the U.S. overthrow of the government and dismantling of the Iraqi military.

    So basically, the U.S. started the problem in the first place, then tried to take credit for somewhat fixing it, and now we see that it was only a cosmetic fix.

    And all of this stems from the original issue: September 11th. What REALLY happened on September 11th? We need to go back and look at that first before we make any decisions going forward.
    • IphtashuFitz, on 10/05/2008, -2/+3You had me until you brought up 9/11 in a way that makes it sound like you're a "truther".
      • Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1And you agreeing with everything else he said might make you rethink your positions on other things.
    • KSUdesigner, on 10/05/2008, -1/+4Wrong, none of this stems from September 11th. When will you idiots realize that Iraq had no relation to September 11th at all when we went in?
  • crescentia, on 10/05/2008, -6/+4What the administration failed to take into consideration in the first place is that there has been religious strife going on in that area for well over 1,000 years. It was beyond egotistical of the US government to think that they could almost instantly change the history of such a climate.
    • KSUdesigner, on 10/05/2008, -0/+3I'm sure they were well aware of the religious conflicts that have been going on for 1,000+ years. What they failed to take into consideration is that it was none of our business.
      • Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -4/+1I concur, as neither was Hitler in the 40's or slavery in the 1800's.



        /s for you out of the loop.
    • Kizilbash, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2Saying religious strife has been going on in Europe for well over 1000 years would actually be more correct.
  • Boing, on 10/05/2008, -4/+16This has nothing to do with the surge of 2007.
  • 41k1d0k4, on 10/05/2008, -1/+3http://www.mideasti.org/commentary/iraq-security-g ...

    Surge... right!
  • briansearles, on 10/05/2008, -6/+20Misleading title... buried.
  • blueduck4ever, on 10/05/2008, -11/+1John McCain can lie, lie and lie all he wants the Right doesn't care about him. No one on the right wanted him so the GOP leaders know the only way to unit the base is to make them hate Obama the black Muslim who hangs out with terrorists and hates America

    • Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1You are full of *****. Well part of what you said is. The first part about the right not wanting him, that's true. But given that you guys decided to throw us an extreme left wing as our other choice was kinda of stupid.
  • benkrembs, on 10/05/2008, -6/+25Violence in Iraq is the lowest it's been yet this year. Yet some Digger finds an article about how 11 people were killed in a bombing, and suddenly the whole surge is in fact a failure.

    Here's a question: Why do so many people on here WANT the surge to fail? Is it really so when Iraq plunges into anarchy and sectarian killing, you can have one more thing to blame on Bush?
    • poidh, on 10/05/2008, -2/+8It's sick isn't it? They hate their governement so much that they would rather have Iraqis being blown to smitherines than safe, just so that they can say "I told you so" and be "proved right".
      I'm no fan of traditional "conservatives", but when it comes down to it, people on the left are far worse people; totally motivated by hatred.
      • oldhick, on 10/06/2008, -1/+3I really don't think that's it. I think we're struggling with the fact that Iraqi's have been being blown to bits for years now. How many years should the surge last? How many repeated tours of duty should our boys have to go on in Iraq?
        I want everyone to be dancing through the daisy's but that just isn't possible. I don't ever want to have to say "I told you so". I don't ever want to see another brother of mine blown up while driving down the rode. Who wants to be the last American soldier killed in Iraq?
        Their own government is asking us to leave. Their own government is asking for a timetable. Maybe we should consider listening. We've spent years letting Bush try his approach. When is it OK to try another approach?
      • Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3@poidh, while I am a fan of "traditional" conservatives, I am not a fan of the ones in office now. Hardly traditional. But what you say about the liberals is spot on. Thank you. To hear a voice on Digg that sees the hate the same way I do is refreshing. Thank you.

        @oldhick, I would accept your answer if the left didn't hinder us in our efforts to win this war. If you truly stood back and let the right do what they think needs to be done, I would have no problem accepting their failure as stated by you and the left. The problem stems from the fact that the left sets all these guidelines that must be followed. Your side half asses everything and sabotages our country. I seriously believe this. I truly believe the left hates America. You hate the fact we are the last super power. You will do anything to tear us down. I can't stand by and let you do that. Before the election in 2000 the left was screaming about Social Security and national medical. GW was elected and he tried to address both problems. The left said Social Security was suddenly good for 125 years. As for the nationalized medical, the Republicans were a no go and the left refused to have anything to do with it because a Republican was proposing it. Since neither party would back Bush, no nationalized medical. As for the timetable, again that is a twist the left puts on the story. We shouldn't tell the enemy when we are pulling out. Stupid. And we are working on that timetable as we speak. But we are doing so because it is getting close to being a successful operation. If, as you and the left say, we are not winning. that the surge did not work, then I think we will stay a little longer.
  • RonPaulTOLDu, on 10/05/2008, -11/+6The plan has always been to stay in Iraq 100 years, and to split the country into 3 or 4 pieces

    Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1
    3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army
    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homelan ...


    Former Congressman Warns Of Martial Law Camps In America
    http://www.infowars.net/articles/february2008/2102 ...

    Representatives Were Threatened with "Martial Law" if Bailout Bill Did Not Pass
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Representatives-W ...

    Bush Given Authority to Sexually Torture American Children
    http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/september ...
    • RonPaulTOLDu, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1whoops didnt mean to link to that story from a particularly liberal site as both parties are controlled by the same people, divide and rule.

      here: *VIDEO* Brad Sherman: MARTIAL LAW THREATENED IF BAILOUT ISN'T PASSED! (10/01/08) http://www.dailypaul.com/node/66354

      more:
      http://www.infowars.com/?p=5061 Congressman: Representatives Were Threatened With Martial Law In America Over Bailout Bill
      Warns that a panic atmosphere is intentionally being nurtured to get bill passed

      in other news: http://www.infowars.com/?p=5078 FDA: Eating Melamine Not Harmful
      you cant make this stuff up. did u hear about rocket fuel in your water??
  • Eagle193, on 10/05/2008, -3/+2mccain would just say that this is a hiccup
  • bender240, on 10/05/2008, -1/+10Since the article linked to doesn't mention the surge at all, and the people claiming the surge is working have never said it has eliminated all violence in Iraq, I'm a little confused... either I've missed some information documenting temporal trends of violence in Iraq, after reading the Reuters article twice, or the person who submitted this is ignorant or attempting to deceive others. Having said all that, I don't think the United States of America should have invaded Iraq in the first place, but then, hindsight is usually 20/20.
  • xman8, on 10/05/2008, -12/+10The Liberals wish for America to fail...

    Liberals are starting to define themselves as being anti-Americans. Good job Libs!
    • gravedigga911, on 10/05/2008, -2/+5nice. you neocons and "libs" keep blaming each other for what both of you have done while unbiased independant moderates shake their head in disgust.
    • BillehBob, on 10/06/2008, -3/+1Defining themselves as anti American seems like a good start given the current situation in the US and the mess they created internationally over the last 7 years.
      If what we see from the US in terms of empty rhetoric, FUD and bile is really what they stand for as a nation I can not image ANYONE wanting to be called American.

      Having said that I agree that you can't measure the success of the surge based on these articles.

      But still....did anyone really think a surge would work ? I mean...really ? We are talking about years and years of strife and hate, suppressed by a power hungry regime. With that gone, of course the ***** hit the fan. I am truly amazed this comes as a surprise to anyone.
    • nycmac247, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2YOU are the one that wants America to fail - by borrowing from the Chinese to pay for your stupid ***** empire!
  • JoeMondo, on 10/05/2008, -3/+3The only way to know if the Surge worked or didn't is to have a measurable objective, and then measure whether it was achieved or not.

    The closest thing to an objective was to decrease the killing of US soldiers, but if you decrease the forces what happens? Stability? Peace? Self sufficiency?

    Not likely.

    Saying the Surge worked is like holding a closet full of faling crap closed with your shoulder and saying "the shoulder worked". It's not a real solution.


  • Wosat, on 10/05/2008, -4/+12I'm amazed that the left can claim a monopoly on intelligence while making such stupid arguments.

    "The enemy killed some people... the surge isn't working!!!" Did Rosie O'Donnell write this headline?
    • KSUdesigner, on 10/05/2008, -2/+2One guy submitting a story on digg does not represent anybody but himself.
      • johndavidjack, on 10/05/2008, -0/+4The people who dig the story do though...

        My guess, most didn't even read it...
      • Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2And yet one Republican in office represents all Republicans everywhere according to Digg.
    • growler1, on 10/06/2008, -3/+2I'm amazed that the right thinks the people of America (and the rest of the world) won't realize that for 8 years Republicans have been pissing down our backs and telling us it's raining, and that this is little more.

      If you think the "surge" has "worked," then why don't you declare "Mission Accomplished"?

      I'm pretty sure I know where you can get a banner really cheap. You'll have to provide your own tube sock to stuff into your flight suit, however.
      • Wosat, on 10/06/2008, -2/+2We can't declare "mission accomplished" anymore because idiots on the left don't know the difference between a mission and a war.
      • growler1, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1@Wosat

        And you don't know the difference between a just war and one that leaves us looking like the ***** keystone kops for six years--compliments of the morons you pledge your allegiance to.
  • AboveandBeyond, on 10/05/2008, -4/+131. take an article from reuters
    2. change the title when submitting into your own agenda
    3. ???
    4. profit
  • simple001, on 10/05/2008, -1/+2The surge is working. I mean if America takes that many soldiers, mercenaries, and hundreds of billions of dollars to any country short of a world power, there will be some changes at the very least.
  • TSK05, on 10/05/2008, -3/+10TSK05: The submitter is an idiot. Article doesn't even mention the surge, all the generals say it's working and even Obama has said it's working. Violence in Iraq has been going down for ages. US troop casualties in September of 2008 (statistics for everyone are harder to find but are out there and say the same thing): 20. US troop casualties in September of 2007: 63. Oh it's an anomaly? Ok, August of 2008: 22. August of 2007: 77.

    Buried as inaccurate.
  • LukasSmith, on 10/05/2008, -1/+11Why am I not suprised you are celebrating these deaths?
    Why am I not suprised you don't know American casualities are drastically smaller?
    Casualities are low all around.

    Get a reality check emos.
    • nycmac247, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1reality check

      --- like only being able to hold one place at a time and then having it revert back after you leave?
      Or the fact that we have spent a TRILLION dollars (that we know about!) and still have no infrastructure?
      Or the cost of vets' health care after the war?
      Or the hatred of the US by everyone and the eventual CERTAINTY that suitcase nukes will be available?
      Or the fact that we now think preemptive war is normal?
      Or that the rise in the use of "contractors" which means more easily fought covert "black budget" wars?

      Or do you think that, having seen us murder their country and their loved ones IN FRONT OF THEIR OWN EYES the children will grow up to ... love us?

      Of course, that's if they are not DEFORMED - scroll down to show you're a real man

      http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Govern ...

      • Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1nyc, why do you act like you care so much for people when your actions don't mimic your words? We are doing the best we can in Iraq. Accept it. The job has already started, now it needs to be completed.

        As for the cost of vet's health care, we managed to deal with it after Vietnam with a much larger number of people. Yes, I know, now I will hear about the vets on the street. We dealt with a vastly larger number after WWII. This is really a non-issue.

        The hatred of the US by everyone. Yes, we are the top dog and it is human nature to hate the top dog. Look at you, you hate us and you are one of us.

        I don;t now anyone who thinks preemptive war is normal. Sorry. I hang with a smarter bunch of people than you do I guess.

        Skipping contractors as marking you as a nut case.

        It is sad that you think our soldiers are murderers. For this thought alone I think you would probably leave the country. The hate you have has to be killing you. Leave, make yourself happy. You can't blame us for the turmoil in the middle east. It has been going on for thousands of years. Some changes need to be made there before suitcase nukes arrive. We are trying to do that. Successful or not, popular or not, it has to be done at some point. But we are NOT murderers. We are doing what we think is best for America, and best for the world. Sorry if you don't agree. I would not fell comfortable in a world with you making my decisions for me. I understand your hate for being in a world where someone who doesn't think like you makes the decisions for you. ***** happens in war. We nuked Japan and we are now allies so you feelings that they, the middle east, will hate us for what we did is untrue. They may always hate us but it has nothing to do with anything we have done.
      • nycmac247, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1"The job has already started, now it needs to be completed."
        1) Can't "win" an occupation of a third world country; physically impossible to "complete"
        2) Already are borrowing the TRILLIONS it takes to keep this joke propped up

        "As for the cost of vet's health care, we managed to deal with it after Vietnam with a much larger number of people."
        1) Oh, like Walter Reed?
        2) Depleted Uranium not used in 'Nam as much as our current "wars"
        http://depleteduraniumthechildkiller.com/

        I don't now anyone who thinks preemptive war is normal.
        1) Like saying we may bomb Iran if they don't stop "building the bomb"?

        "Skipping contractors as marking you as a nut case."
        1)????
        2) Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
        http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Blackwater/Jeremy ...

        "It is sad that you think our soldiers are murderers."
        1) Never said that, WTF?
        2) A good way to dismiss arguments is to use a really broad brush but nice try

        "We nuked Japan and we are now allies ..."
        1) Developed nation, great urban infrastructure, cultural hemomgeny - fairly easy to rebuild
        2) Might want to look at the history of the "Near East;" even pre-Zionism the US and UK basically created it out of the ashes of WWI (and not just TE Lawrence claiming the Turks raped him, either)


        See you in BUD/S training (I may make it this year and not tear anything on those ***** waves!)
        LOL if you only knew



      • Zarchon, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1"having seen us murder their country and their loved ones IN FRONT OF THEIR OWN EYES" I'm sorry, I thought this meant you thought our troops were murderers. WTF DOES it mean?

        Dude, 4000 dead, that's the same number of people killed in a year by gangs here in America. As for the wounded, yes, we will take care of them. You bring up Walter Reed and the last I heard that situation was being taken care of.

        "Or the fact that we now think preemptive war is normal?" The fact that something happened doesn't mean we now think it is normal. I don't. Do you?

        Just go ahead and keep blaming us for the middle east problems. Just explain to me why they have been a pain in the worlds side for thousands of years and why you think the only reason they are that way today is our fault. I think you are a jackass who hates his country and hates his own prosperity. Why don't you go over there and offer your services. Your bitching and whining here, in my opinion, causes an untold amount of damage to our country and our troops.

  • paulmer2003, on 10/05/2008, -2/+11Wait, the surge has failed because there was one attack today? Give me a break. Some of you guys are a bit extreme. Look at the numbers, before surge and after surge. It has gone way down. Know when to concede that the other side was right (oh wait, only the republicans have to concede to the democrats when they're wrong..oh, ok)..

    And protip: I did not support GWB invading Iraq, etc. Ron Paul supporter here.
  • cfuse, on 10/05/2008, -5/+2Thank god they took out those three kids - they were clearly plotting the downfall of America.
  • gluecode, on 10/05/2008, -0/+3What happened to the US secret weapon in Iraq that Bob Woodward claimed? Or was it just to sell a few more copies of his book?
  • amightywind, on 10/05/2008, -1/+6The surge has been a spectacular success. Thanks President Bush and General Petraeus. Victory in Iraq is at hand. On to Tehran!
  • DarkReign16, on 10/05/2008, -2/+4The fact remains that while violence has gone down, one cannot necessarily attribute it to the surge. It's easy to assume that since X happened after Y, Y caused X, but that's a logical fallacy. Take that into consideration.
  • hiriumi, on 10/05/2008, -3/+4When the majority of the people want U.S. troops out of Iraq because they should never have gone into Iraq, Republicans turns the debate into something like "we don't want to lose." From the Rambo days, America seems to have to have enemies. America cannot stand by itself without someone or something to fight with. Now that is the profound sickness that this country is suffering from.
    • Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -3/+1My country isn't sick. Your warped sense of reality is. America does not rule by mob rule. We elect people to rule. If they don't do it right we elect someone else. You can't "poll the people" every time you do something.
      • hiriumi, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2I understand how the U.S. political system works, but the fact that this country has to have enemies for its existence is a serious sickness.
  • RogueGenius, on 10/05/2008, -4/+4The title is misleading, though true.
  • Nore, on 10/05/2008, -5/+8Buried for inaccurate and misleading title.
  • TBombadil, on 10/05/2008, -2/+6it never worked, any bettering of conditions can be attributed to the ethnic cleansing and walling
  • ronaldinho, on 10/05/2008, -2/+3Well, we know that for a long time. It's time for our government to right this wrong by stepping out of Iraq. Although the submitter is clearly reaching when this was just another Iraqi military episode. I still dugg it to remind everyone that we are still in Iraq though, and we need to get out ASAP. Ron Paul would have gotten us out, but Obama is our next best bet for this. Although ever since he voted for the bailout, I'm seriously considering voting third-party. RP, get into the ballot!
  • Technoviking, on 10/05/2008, -2/+6The surge is not mentioned once in this article. Buried for inaccuracy, widespread throughout Digg.
  • techweenie, on 10/05/2008, -2/+2Define "surge."
  • thensley, on 10/05/2008, -1/+4Needs to be under "idiot" category
  • addrake, on 10/05/2008, -1/+4stupid ***** dick. Hey mercypolitics..go ***** yourself you miserable pile of excrement
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.